Expanding foam - or firework?

Well - I am not impressed...
If the EU wanted to do something useful, they'd have dealt with this, not fecked about with hoovers.
Me and mate are adding teh second layer of insulation in the dormer. This time, I decided, as it's the finish layer, it might be suitably paranoid of me to use pink fire rated expanding foam (Screwfix NoNonsense) as "fire rated" seems like a good idea.
Anyway, long story short - to see exactly what the differences were, we took a small lump (1x2" sort of lump) of this, plus a couple of old bits of other foams outside.
Now - I was expecting "fire rated" to mean "itumescent" and to not only not support combustion, but to char over or something.
Well - it does not support combustion - but it does burn. Rather like celotex. Hold a flame to it, it burns, take flame away, it goes out.
The yellow foam I tried actually was not much worse - it did flare for a bit, but seemed to char and go out.
However, some green foam went like a bloody firework. Needless to say, I really was unimpressed.
I have no idea what the other makes were - I used the yellow stuff, so it was *probably* Screwfix no nonsense.
The green stuff was used by the roofers in odd places to make sure the celotext stayed in place. Dunno what make that was - but this was 4 years ago.
The mitigating factor is 95% is being covered by more celotex and plasterboard. However, there are odd bits in the eaves - which I have been cutting out where they've formed blobs - and I've already cleared it where it enveloped electrical cables - just because it seemed like a bad idea. Most cables pass through the insulation in PVC conduit which does not support combustion - but there are cables that come straight up from the walls past the insulation.
I'm of a mind, after trimming back any excesses, to give the exposed parts a coat of in-tumescent paint.
But WHY are they being allowed to sell stuff that ignites and supports combustion? I thought we'd got past that with polystyrene and furniture foam.
Glad I switched to pink foam...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25/05/16 19:23, Tim Watts wrote:

Polystyrene (and other combustible) foam is suitable for use under floor screeds or underground as stress reliever or insulation where the chances of it catching alight are an order less than a meteorite obliterating Bradford
--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25/05/16 19:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well, that's true - but wouldn't most jablite be fire retardent treated by default anyway?
I am just thinking of the fact that everyone everywhere - window fitters, plumbers, builders, are spraying random foam into every nook and cranny. Most of them will not be buying fire rated as it costs a few pounds (literally £4 or so) more than a full can of non fire rated.
But given a typical job (insulation, window fitting) even on a whole house will use less than 10-15 cans even on a bad day, who cares?
So we have (to bring it suitably off topic) the EU dicking around with hoovers and lightbulbs and ignoring stuff like this?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25/05/2016 19:53, Tim Watts wrote:

They are just doing what the voters want. Or say they want. There's a significant number of people voting for the greens, but nobody voting for fire safety. :)
Finally, with LEDs, we have energy saving lightbulbs that work as well as incandescent bulbs, but I have no idea why anybody thought they could save energy with lower powered vacuum cleaners.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Because most politicians and Greens are idiots.
--
Today is Setting Orange, the 72nd day of Discord in the YOLD 3182
I don't have an attitude problem.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25/05/16 22:50, Huge wrote:

Greens yes, politicians, not necessarily.
They can be smart and corrupt, or smart and operating on a different set of principles.
One of the best ever narratives of how 'green' politics can end up doing insane things for all the right reasons is given by the late Professor Cohen in his book 'the Nuclear energy option'. He describes a plan to move some low level radioactive waste from where it was almost certainly completely safe if concrete was poured on top of it, and put it in a custom designed and very expensive 'storage facility' at a multi-billion dollar cost ---------------------------------------------------------------------
"One last item deserves mention here — the radiation exposure to workers in executing the plans described above. It turns out that exposure is greater in the billion-dollar plan that was adopted than in the plan for conversion to cement, by an amount that would cause 0.02 deaths (i.e., a 2% chance of a single death) among the workers. Since this is more than 0.01 deaths to the public from the conversion to cement, the billion-dollar plan is actually more dangerous.
I have met the government officials who chose the billion-dollar plan, and have discussed these questions with them. They are intelligent people trying to do their jobs well. But they don't view saving lives as the relevant question. In their view, their jobs are to respond to public concern and political pressures. A few irrational zealots in the Buffalo area stirred up the public there with the cry "We want that dangerous waste out of our area." Why should any local people oppose them? Their congressional representatives took that message to Washington — what would they have to gain by doing otherwise? The DOE officials responded to that pressure by asking for the billion-dollar program. It wasn't hurting them; in fact, having a new billion-dollar program to administer is a feather in their caps. Congress was told that a billion dollars was needed to discharge the government's responsibility in protecting the public from this dangerous waste — how could it fail to respond?
That is how a few people with little knowledge or understanding of the problem induced the United States Government to pour a billion dollars "down a rathole." I watched every step of the process as it went off as smooth as glass. And the perpetrators of this mess have become local heroes to boot."
Well meaning ignorance, cunning greed, desire for power and influence and someone elses money.
The Left *as it actually is* summed up in a single sentence...
--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They claim that forcing the manufacturers to limit the motors in their vacuums, they are forcing them to have more efficient designs that still do the job well with lower power motors. How true that is is another matter.
And how often vacuums are used is too compared with the electrical heating appliances used in the home.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25/05/16 22:28, GB wrote:

No, they are NOT doing what the voters want. They are doing what light bulb, and vacuum cleaner companies in Europe want, using the Green meme as an excuse.

Well you probably can BUT the actual motors themselves will have to have as much if not more irons and copper in them to achieve the higher efficiencies, and that takes energy to produce. Which may never be paid back in the short actual running time of the average domestic hoover.
--
“Some people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of 
an airplane.”
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/05/16 07:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Me and mate were wondering that as he was helping me to fit extra celotex - ie how much energy did that celotex take to produce compared to what it would save.
We concluded a better solution would be to only allow it for insulating older buildings where space is limited, and require new builts to be designed to accept 8-10" of sheeps wool (and only sheeps wool - not rock wool).
It really would not be hard to put a little extra engineered space in buildings to allow a natural and low energy cost product to be used.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/05/2016 07:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Not forgetting the rare-earth minerals that are essential for the manufacture of the high-efficiency motors. And most of the worlds supply is controlled by China (for now), the worlds biggest polluter.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/05/16 11:17, Andrew wrote:

No rare earth in an induction motor. That's for DC permanent magnet motors like (I assume) Die-Soon's
BTW rare earths aren't particularly rare.
--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 25 May 2016 22:28:16 +0100, GB wrote:

SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE!!! - but it was done the wrong way. Vac. manufacturers have been willy-waving for years - bad enough with cameras and MPx - but stupid with vacs. Power sells to the stupid; effectivness is irrelevant. I've a 1400W Nilfisk that's good, but no better than a 25-year-old Numatic George of 900W, so wot's the watts for? Another half kW to FA.
If the EU addressed efficiency it might be useful, but anything that 'thinks' reducing wattage of kettles will 'save' energy is a bit daft.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/05/2016 10:46, PeterC wrote:

That last one appears to be an urban myth. It's never been an EU proposal. It would make sense to insulate kettles, though.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/05/16 11:46, GB wrote:

Sigh. Calculate how long the boiling water is in the kettle, cooling down, before being poured...
Total waste of money.
Now a heat pump kettle attached to an ice cream machine..
--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26/05/2016 11:46, GB wrote:

IIRC it has been argued that as kettles became more powerful, to give faster boil times, consumers may have been less concerned about heating more than the water they need as it still boils faster than before. But I agree the EU is very unlikely to act on power. And IIRC insulation is also not on the agenda. But I expect (as discussed here before) a return (after June!) to the possibility of mandating kettles which cut out at below boiling. After all, most uses other than black tea don't need boiling water.
I also expect loads of stuff about tests to demonstrate minimum quality and expected lifetimes. Of course this will mean an end to cheap kettles designed and made in Asia for a world market. But then the EU is good at non-tariff trade barriers.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 26 May 2016 16:14:28 +0100, Robin wrote:

Although I do it at almsot boiling, I flick the kettle off as I almost have water below the Min. mark and don't want to damage the element. Seems to work, as kettles last for 10 years+.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Correct.

Not if you don’t like stewed hot water and put fresh water in the kettle every time you use it.
Insulated kettles would help in an office situation where some refill kettles and turn them on after they have got the hot water they need themselves, so the next person can just turn it on again and get hot water quickly. But kettles don’t make a lot of sense in an office situation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"old bits". That might be significant. You don't suppose your new stuff was still full of propellant?
Tim
--
Trolls and troll feeders go in my killfile

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25/05/16 19:36, Tim+ wrote:

It was the old bit that went Woomph.
The new stuff was fine. Unless you are thinking that the propellent was not a source of fuel, but the old stuff was full or air in the cells?
In which case, the two old bits (4 years or so) were of the same vitage and yellow was not bad but green was much worse.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25/05/2016 19:36, Tim+ wrote:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v
i5ciuZcPE
--
mailto: news admac {dot] myzen co uk

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.